This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-469
entitled 'DOD schools: Limitations in DOD-Sponsored Study on Transfer
Alternatives Underscore Need for Additional Assessment' which was
released on April 26, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
April 2005:
DOD schools:
Limitations in DOD-Sponsored Study on Transfer Alternatives Underscore
Need for Additional Assessment:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-469]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-469, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) operates 59 elementary and secondary
schools serving over a dozen military bases in the continental United
States Periodically, questions have been raised concerning the
continuing need for such schools. In 2002, DOD commissioned the Donahue
Institute of the University of Massachusetts to examine the potential
for transferring these schools to local education agencies (LEAs).
GAO’s assessment focused on (1) the extent to which DOD has established
a school closure policy and the effect such policies have on quality-of-
life issues for servicemembers and their dependents; and (2) the
transfer study, including the clarity of the basis for conclusions
reached, the overall financial impact, and issues identified but not
resolved by the study. GAO’s report also identifies issues not
addressed in the transfer study that could impact the future of DOD’s
domestic schools.
What GAO Found:
Officials in the DOD Education Activity, which administers the DOD
school program, said that neither DOD nor Department of Defense
Education Activity has specific policy guidance related to closing
domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools. While some
expansion and contraction of the number of domestic schools operated by
DOD occurred between the 1950s and early 1970s, relatively few have
been closed or transferred since then, and most of those have been
related to base closure activities. For affected military families, the
retention of these schools is seen as an important quality-of-life
issue.
The basis for the expert panel recommendations to transfer selected DOD
schools to LEAs is difficult to ascertain. Specifically, it is often
unclear how various analytical factors examined led to recommendations
being made. For example, in one instance the panel recommended transfer
of educational responsibilities to the neighboring LEA even though the
LEA’s per pupil costs were higher than DOD’s and the LEA schools were
cited as mostly “underperforming.” Moreover, the study data indicate
that DOD could incur an estimated $125 million to repair and upgrade
existing schools. Under the panel’s recommendations, DOD would also
have a continuing obligation to maintain the schools even after program
transfers to the LEAs. Some long-term savings in operating costs could
accrue to DOD, but many of these costs would need to be absorbed by
LEAs or other federal programs. The transfer study also indicates that
various legal restrictions in some states would need to be resolved.
Finally, ownership of the schools DOD operates needs to be clarified in
order to ensure that it is properly reflected in property records.
There are other factors, most not present when the transfer study
began, that could further complicate school transfer decisions,
including ongoing DOD plans to relocate about 70,000 military personnel
and approximately 100,000 family members currently stationed overseas
to bases in the United States within the next few years; Army efforts
to reorganize its force structure, with the potential for increased
numbers of personnel assigned to selected military bases in the United
States; and the impact of the 2005 base realignment and closure round.
Likewise, current DOD efforts to privatize housing on its military
bases could also impact future requirements for schools serving
military dependents. DOD has appropriately said that it is postponing
decision making on the results of the transfer study until after base
closure decisions are finalized later this year. However, the impact of
troop redeployments and other force structure changes on schools has
not yet been fully assessed. Given the expected increase of school age
military dependents on various stateside military bases over the next
few years, a clear decision on school transfer issues should be made
after the results of the base closure process and overseas rebasing
plans are known to ensure adequate planning for facilities by DOD and
LEAs.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to ensure DOD
schools are properly accounted for in real property records and if a
transfer decision is made, to undertake a more complete assessment of
impending changes in U.S. basing levels and their impact on educational
facility requirements to foster appropriate facility planning by DOD
and/or LEAs. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred
with GAO’s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-469].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at (202)
512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Does Not Have Specific Criteria for Closing Schools:
Expert Panel Recommends Program Transfers to LEAs in Most Instances,
but Basis for Decisions Are Not Always Clear, and Many Issues Remain to
be Addressed:
Other Issues Could Impact Decision Making:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Expert Panel Members:
Appendix II: Department of Defense Elementary and Secondary (DDESS)
Schools in the Continental United States:
Appendix III: Prior Studies on Transferring DDESS Schools to LEAs:
Appendix IV: Transfer Study Rules and Alternatives:
Appendix V: Differing Perspectives on Selected DDESS and LEA Schools
Contained in Various Transfer Study Report Documents:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Table:
Table 1: Expert Panel's Recommendations:
Letter April 26, 2005:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Historically, public elementary and secondary education has been a
state and local responsibility. However, for many years, the Department
of Defense (DOD) has also operated a number of such schools (currently
59) serving over a dozen military bases in the continental United
States.[Footnote 1] Periodically, questions have been raised within the
Congress concerning the continuing need for such schools, and various
studies were commissioned in the 1980s and early 1990s to study the
potential for transferring responsibility for educating students served
by these schools to local public school districts--otherwise referred
to in this report as local education agencies (LEAs). Prior studies
identified multiple issues that would have to be addressed if a
transfer of responsibilities were to be attempted, and such transfers
were not considered feasible. Furthermore, military members served by
these schools and related support groups have voiced strong support for
retention of these DOD schools based on quality-of-life considerations.
In 2002, the department's attention once again turned to studying the
potential for transferring DOD's domestic elementary and secondary
education program over to LEAs. Officials in the Department of Defense:
Education Activity (DODEA),[Footnote 2] which administers this program,
have indicated that the new effort was the result of questions raised
by the then chairman of the House Appropriations Military Construction
Subcommittee regarding whether there was a need for continued operation
of these schools by DOD arising from a request for funding for a school-
related project on a military base. Additionally, in 2002, as part of
its focus on improving management of the department, DOD's senior
leadership endorsed examining departmental functions to determine
whether they were core to the department's warfighting mission, with
expectations that needed products or services associated with non-core
functions should be obtained from other government agencies or the
private sector. In announcing that it would begin a new study of
elementary and secondary schools operated by DOD on 14 installation
areas in seven states including Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, New York, and Virginia, Department of Defense
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools' (DDESS) press
release indicated that the study would "focus largely on the ability
and willingness of LEAs to assume educational responsibility for the
students currently enrolled in DOD's domestic schools." The transfer
study effort, apart from a facilities analysis phase by Parkhill,
Smith, and Cooper Inc., was completed under contract by the Donahue
Institute of the University of Massachusetts.[Footnote 3]
The Donahue Institute retained an independent panel of education
experts[Footnote 4] which developed recommendations based on the
Institute's data and the facility data obtained under the Corps of
Engineers contract. The panel of experts recommended transferring
educational responsibilities at 10 of 14 installation areas studied
from DDESS schools to LEAs. DOD does not plan to make a decision
regarding the recommendations until after decisions on the upcoming
base realignment and closure round are completed later this year.
Section 597 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005,[Footnote 5] which was signed into law on October
28, 2004, required the Comptroller General to prepare a report
containing:
(1) an assessment of the policy of the Department of Defense, and the
criteria utilized by the department, regarding the closure of
Department of Defense dependent elementary and secondary schools,
including whether or not such policy and criteria are consistent with
department policies and procedures on the preservation of the quality-
of-life of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents; and:
(2) an assessment of any current or on-going studies or assessments of
the department with respect to any of the schools.
The legislation required that the report be submitted to the Senate and
House Armed Services committees not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of the legislation.
Our assessment focused on (1) the extent to which DOD has established a
school closure policy and the effect such a policy has on quality-of-
life issues for servicemembers and their dependents; and (2) the
transfer study conducted by the Donahue Institute, including the
clarity of the basis for conclusions reached, the overall financial
impact, and issues identified but not resolved by the study. While
conducting this work, we also noted other issues not addressed in the
transfer study that could impact decision making regarding the future
of DOD's domestic elementary and secondary schools.
In completing this engagement, we interviewed DODEA officials regarding
their policy guidance related to closing schools and reviewed the
results of the recent study dealing with the potential transfer of
DDESS schools to LEAs. We discussed the study design and methodology
with officials of DODEA, DDESS, the Donahue Institute and two of the
three members of the panel of experts employed by the institute to
review its data and to develop study recommendations. We examined the
various study summary documents to try to gauge the basis for the
study's recommendations and determine how clearly the recommendations
were linked to the summary information provided. We also reviewed
summaries of interviews completed by the institute with leaders in
affected DDESS schools and local education agencies to confirm and
better understand the range of issues associated with the issue of
potential transfer of the schools to LEAs. Likewise, we also discussed
relevant issues concerning federal impact aid and experience in
transferring federally owned schools to LEAs with officials at the U.S.
Department of Education. Given time constraints, we did not attempt to
validate data included in DOD's transfer study, but we did review the
steps taken by the Donahue Institute to verify its data and analysis
and to compare key data against other available data sets to
corroborate its relative accuracy. We obtained other relevant
statistical data concerning data about DDESS schools from DODEA and
made limited checks to assure ourselves that the data was sufficiently
accurate for the purposes of our review.
We conducted this review from January to April 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Further details about
our scope and methodology appear at the end of this report.
Results in Brief:
While DOD has previously urged its components to examine for potential
divestiture or outsourcing to the private sector functions not core to
warfighting efforts, DODEA officials told us that neither DOD nor DODEA
has specific policy guidance related to closing dependent elementary
and secondary schools, the retention of which under DOD are seen by
some servicemembers and their dependents as important to their quality
of life. The officials noted the elimination of only three domestic
schools in the past few years; one in 2001 in Georgia as the result of
military housing privatization when the school transferred to an LEA,
and two others in 2004 as the result of a base closure in Puerto Rico.
Survey data from the recent and previous transfer studies clearly
indicate that for military families, whose dependents attend DDESS
schools, retention of those schools is an important quality-of-life
issue. While their children represent a very small percentage of the
dependent school-age population, affected servicemembers' views of the
quality of education and related services provided by the dependent
schools makes the retention of these schools very important to them.
The importance of these schools has been affirmed in departmental
guidance concerning what functions could be performed by the private
sector. That guidance currently permits principals and faculty at DOD
Dependent Schools to be exempted from outsourcing consideration
recognizing these functions could be performed by the private sector
(but without the same effect--i.e., military performance of these
activities carries special meaning for military personnel and their
families).[Footnote 6] Nonetheless, the future of these schools has
been subject to some uncertainty in recent years due to congressional
concerns and as DOD began emphasizing the assessment of functions not
core to warfighting missions for potential outsourcing which resulted
in the initiation of the recent transfer study.
While the recent study sought to complete a more comprehensive
assessment of the transfer issue than prior studies, the basis for the
panel of experts recommendations is difficult to ascertain where
transfers of DDESS' educational responsibilities are recommended. In
addition to costs that would be incurred by DOD, legal and other issues
could complicate the implementation of the panel's recommended school
transfers to LEAs. The panel's recommendations report does not always
provide a clear or concise indication of the key factors supporting the
transfer of educational programs from DDESS to LEAs. Specifically, it
is often unclear how the panel of experts evaluated various analytical
factors leading to its recommendations based on information provided in
the various study documents. Two expert panel members we contacted
acknowledged that the panel's recommendations were subjective but based
on all the members' collective expertise and experiences. However,
information provided in the various study report documents sometimes
raised more questions than it answered. For example, the panel in two
of three instances where there was more than one affected LEA
recommended transferring educational responsibilities to one of the
LEAs even though the local school district was considered to be
"underperforming" when another "overperforming" LEA was available with
lower per pupil costs. In addition, the panel recommended a LEA over
DDESS even though the LEA's per pupil costs were higher and its schools
were cited as mostly "underperforming."[Footnote 7] The study data
indicate that DOD could incur an estimated $125 million to repair and
upgrade existing DDESS schools. In addition, DOD would have a
continuing obligation to maintain the school facilities even after
transfer of educational responsibility to the LEAs, under the transfer
alternative recommended by the panel. Long-term savings in operating
costs could accrue to DOD but many of these costs would need to be
absorbed by LEAs and would, to some extent, create an additional burden
for the U.S. Department of Education as it distributes available
resources to LEAs that become eligible for increased impact aid as a
result of educating more military-connected students.[Footnote 8] At
the same time, numerous other issues would arise if efforts were made
to implement the transfers, such as clarifying current ownership of the
schools between DOD and the U.S. Department of Education and
differences in their relative legislative authorities for transferring
federally owned schools to LEAs.[Footnote 9] Other legal restrictions
in some states would likely prohibit LEAs from readily taking
possession of facilities located on federal lands. The panel of experts
recognized that any transfers would need to be done on an individual,
negotiated basis.
Apart from the issues identified in the transfer study, there are other
factors/issues not addressed in the study, most of which were not
present when the study began, that could impact DDESS and LEA schools,
and further complicate school transfer decisions. The study does not
recognize such ongoing DOD plans as:
* the restationing of about 70,000 military personnel and approximately
100,000 family members currently stationed overseas to bases in the
United States within the next few years;
* Army efforts to reorganize its force structure, with the potential
for increased numbers of personnel assigned to selected military bases
in the United States; and:
* the impact of the 2005 base realignment and closure round.
DOD has appropriately said that it is postponing decision making on the
results of the transfer study until after base closure decisions are
finalized later this year. Likewise, current DOD efforts to privatize
housing on its military bases, combined with rebasing efforts noted
previously could also impact future requirements for on-base dependent
schools. However, the impact of these housing factors has not yet been
fully assessed. Nevertheless, given the expected increase of school age
military dependents on stateside military bases over the next few
years, a clear decision on school transfer issues made sooner rather
than later would help to ensure adequate planning for facilities by DOD
and LEAs.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense resolve continuing
uncertainty regarding the school transfer issue to foster appropriate
facility planning by DOD and/or LEAs.
Background:
Notwithstanding that public elementary and secondary education
historically has been a state and local responsibility, DOD has also
operated such schools at selected U.S. and overseas locations to
educate military dependents residing on military bases. Collectively,
the domestic and overseas programs operate over 200 dependent schools
in the United States, U.S. territories, and overseas,[Footnote 10] with
59 schools operated in the continental United States. (See appendix II
for a listing of these DDESS school locations.) Approximately 105,000
students are enrolled in these combined programs, with approximately
24,000 students attending the 59 schools in the continental United
States. DDESS schools mostly serve elementary school-aged students in
the United States, with older students attending public schools off the
installations. The overseas DODDS system has approximately 12,000
employees while the DDESS system has approximately 5,700 employees. The
combined operating budget for both systems and headquarters in fiscal
year 2005 is about $1.49 billion of which approximately $367 million is
for operating DDESS schools.[Footnote 11]
As we have previously reported, the federal government's operation of
elementary schools in the continental United States to educate military
dependents residing on military bases traces its history back many
years and to locations where a suitable free public education was not
available.[Footnote 12] There were a variety of reasons for
establishing schools on military bases, including military
installations that were located in sparsely populated areas and efforts
to avoid racial segregation at the neighboring school districts.
From 1951 to 1981, funding responsibility for the domestic schools
resided with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
subsequently with the Department of Education. The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) transferred funding
responsibility to DOD. Today, DODEA, the umbrella agency created in
1994 to administer the overseas (DODDS) and domestic (DDESS) systems,
operates under the direction of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Military Community and Family Policy, and the Under Secretary of
Defense, Personnel and Readiness.
The DDESS model is but one of several approaches to providing
elementary and secondary education to dependents of military personnel
residing on military bases in the United States. There are 33
Department of Education-owned schools located on military bases but
operated by LEAs, providing education for military dependents residing
on those bases. The Department of Education has been gradually
transferring these schools to LEAs as funds are available to upgrade
the condition of the schools to encourage acceptance of the schools by
LEAs.[Footnote 13] In other instances, LEAs own and operate schools
located on military bases. Finally, in a limited number of instances,
DOD directly funds LEAs to educate military dependents at schools
operated on military bases.
Periodically, questions have arisen within the Congress concerning the
continuing need for such schools within the continental United States,
and various studies were commissioned in the 1980s and early 1990s to
evaluate the potential for transferring the schools to LEAs.[Footnote
14] In December 1986 we examined three methods to educate military
dependents, then in selected use, which were viewed as alternatives to
the DOD-funded and operated schools. They included: (1) operation by
local school districts, with funding from federal, state, and local
governments; (2) DOD contracting with local school districts for
educational services; and (3) coterminous operation, whereby
dependents' schools operated as local school districts whose boundaries
were the same as the military installations' boundaries, and where
funding for those districts was shared by the Department of Education
(through the federal impact aid program) and the responsible state
government. We reported in December 1986 that creation of school
districts coterminous with military installations appeared to be the
best of the three alternatives, in part because such an approach would
likely minimize the transfer of students from existing schools and
eliminate costs to DOD. However, according to a DODEA official, most
states have since passed laws that prohibit the creation of new school
districts, which eliminates the coterminous option from consideration.
We also reported that jurisdictional, legal, and other issues could
impede consideration of all three alternatives. Subsequent studies by
others offered varying degrees of insights regarding these alternatives
and difficulties likely to be encountered in trying to implement them,
and often identified multiple issues that would have to be addressed--
including legal and financial issues, and strong opposition from
affected military families--if a transfer of responsibilities were to
be attempted. As a result, school transfers were not considered
feasible. (See app. III for a synopsis of each of the prior studies.)
In 2002, DOD's attention again turned to studying the potential for
transferring DOD's domestic elementary and secondary education program
over to LEAs. DODEA officials have indicated that the new effort was
the result of questions raised by the then chairman of the House
Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee regarding whether
there was a continuing need for DOD to operate these schools triggered
by a request for funding for a school-related project on a military
base. We also note that in 2002, as part of its focus on improving
management of the department, DOD's Senior Executive Council[Footnote
15] endorsed a core competency-based approach for DOD sourcing
decisions--that is, the decision to use a public or private sector
source to perform a necessary agency function or activity was based on
whether the function or activity was core to the agency's mission. The
Senior Executive Council believed that the department should focus its
energies and talents on those functions that were core or directly
linked to its warfighting mission. These core functions must be
performed by the agency, with the expectation that necessary products
or services associated with non-core functions should be obtained from
other government agencies or the private sector.[Footnote 16]
A DDESS press release, announcing the planned transfer study in 2002,
indicated that the study would "focus largely on the ability and
willingness of LEAs to assume educational responsibility for the
students currently enrolled in DOD's domestic schools." This transfer
study was performed in multiple phases that included:
* A facility condition assessment performed by Parkhill, Smith, and
Cooper, Inc., and contracted through the Army Corps of Engineers. Field
observer site visits were made to document the current physical
condition of each school, estimate probable costs for remediation, and
assess whether renovation or replacement was needed. This assessment
identified about $125 million in remediation costs for all 58 DDESS
schools surveyed and about $33 million to replace 4 of the
schools.[Footnote 17]
* A data collection and analysis phase conducted by the Donahue
Institute of the University of Massachusetts to examine the feasibility
of transferring 58[Footnote 18] DDESS schools operating in the
continental United States to local school districts. A set of transfer
alternatives was developed and analyzed for each of the DDESS schools.
* Use of a three-person expert panel, approved by DOD and contracted by
the Donahue Institute to independently assess the Institute's data and
analysis and make recommendations regarding transfer alternatives.
* A quality-of-life assessment, based on an October 2003 meeting in
Peachtree City, Georgia, with representatives of the domestic DDESS
schools and installations where their views were solicited and
documented. Participants included installation commanders, students,
parents, union leaders, and special interest groups.
The recommendations of the panel of experts were submitted to DODEA in
December 2003, but remained closely held without widespread
dissemination inside the department and without public dissemination
until February 2005. At the time we completed our work, DOD had not
made a decision regarding adoption of the panel's recommendations,
postponing such a decision until later this year after decisions
related to the 2005 base realignment and closure round are completed.
DOD Does Not Have Specific Criteria for Closing Schools:
While DOD has previously urged its components to examine for potential
divestiture or outsourcing of functions not core to warfighting efforts
to the private sector, neither DODEA nor DOD has policy guidance
related to closing the dependent elementary and secondary schools
operated by the department. While expansion and contraction of the
number of domestic schools operated by DOD occurred between the 1950s
and early 1970s, relatively few have been closed or transferred since
then, and most of these have been related to base closure activities.
For affected military families, the retention of these schools is seen
as a quality-of-life issue, but there are varying perspectives on this
issue within DOD.
DOD Has Eliminated Few Domestic Schools in Recent Years:
DODEA officials told us they had eliminated only three domestic schools
in the past few years; one in 2001 in Georgia as the result of military
housing privatization initiative, and two others in 2004 as the result
of a base closure in Puerto Rico.[Footnote 19] This contrasts with an
earlier period between the 1950s and 1970s when there was a more robust
expansion and contraction in such schools.
Per the 2004 defense appropriations act, the Roosevelt Roads Naval
Station in Puerto Rico was closed in 2004 and, as part of that closure,
the DDESS schools on that base also closed. The only other instance of
a DDESS school being eliminated in recent years occurred in 2001 as a
result of the department's housing privatization efforts. In that
instance, land associated with on-base housing at Warner Robins Air
Force Base, Georgia, was transferred to a contractor and the land
transferred included one of the base's two schools. As a result, the
school was subsequently transferred to the LEA, which became
responsible for educating students at that school. DOD housing
privatization officials indicated they do not currently anticipate
similar transfers of schools in the future.
Earlier transfer studies point to expansion and contraction of DOD
operated schools on military bases between 1950 and 1970. Schools were
added to the DDESS system as a result of the racial integration of the
military during the time when the schools in the neighboring LEAs
remained segregated. At one point, about 100 military installations
reportedly had schools that belonged to what is now the DDESS system.
Various studies report a subsequent contraction in the number of these
schools due to a variety of factors including successful implementation
of integration policies in many instances that allowed base schools to
rejoin their former LEAs, pressure from the U.S. Department of
Education on states and localities to acknowledge responsibility for
the education of military dependents, and commercial and residential
development adjacent to some bases that enabled the LEA to provide a
viable educational program.
Retention of Domestic Dependent Schools Is Seen as a Quality-of-Life
Issue:
Survey and other data from the current and earlier studies on transfer
issues clearly indicate that affected military families, whose
dependents attend DDESS schools, view their retention as a quality-of-
life issue. While their children represent a very small percentage of
the dependent school-aged population, affected servicemembers' views of
the quality of education and related services provided by the dependent
schools makes clear that the retention of these schools is very
important to them. An October 1997 Defense Manpower Data Center study
noted that "the loss of the DDESS schools would undoubtedly be viewed
as another loss of a military quality-of-life benefit. But unlike many
other benefit cuts… that affect all or most military servicemembers,
the loss of this benefit would affect a small proportion of military
servicemembers."
The Defense Manpower Data Center report also indicated that DDESS
students comprised only three percent of all school-aged children of
active-duty servicemembers. DODEA provided us with data that indicate
that figure remains current today. Moreover, only 23 percent of all
school-aged dependents of military members assigned to the
installations served by DOD's domestic dependent schools in the
continental United States attend the schools. This can be attributed to
the fact that many military families reside in local communities--that
is, not on the base--and thus are not eligible to attend DDESS schools,
and the fact that relatively few DDESS schools provide education for
high school students.
DOD's guidance for deciding what functions the department performs that
could be considered commercial in nature and readily available in the
private sector, has exempted DOD schools from outsourcing
consideration. DOD's guidance stipulates that principals and faculty at
DOD dependent schools perform functions that could be performed by the
private sector "but without the same effect--i.e., military performance
of these activities carries special meaning for military personnel, and
their families." The guidance also notes that principals and faculty at
DOD Dependent Schools demonstrate family support, promote quality-of-
life and foster camaraderie for recruitment and retention purposes.
Accordingly, DOD dependent schools were exempt from private sector
performance comparisons. In addition, in recent years, DOD has sought a
more aggressive look at whether various functions are core to the
department's warfighting mission, and to increase the number of
functions that might be performed by the private sector. Dependent
schools are one such function that has sometimes been questioned
regarding its connection to DOD's core mission.
Conversely, in July 2002, DOD published A New Social Compact: A
Reciprocal Partnership Between The Department of Defense,
Servicemembers and Families. The document was issued under the auspices
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and
Family Policy). It noted that in 2001, the President had issued a
National Security Presidential Directive requiring the Secretary of
Defense to undertake a review of measures for improving the quality of
life for military personnel and provide recommendations for their
implementation. While the new compact did not specifically address the
issue of whether DOD dependent schools should be retained or
transferred to LEAs, it did include a section devoted to enhancing
educational opportunities provided through DODEA worldwide.
Expert Panel Recommends Program Transfers to LEAs in Most Instances,
but Basis for Decisions Are Not Always Clear, and Many Issues Remain to
be Addressed:
The panel of experts recommended transferring most educational
responsibilities from DDESS schools to LEAs at 10 of 14 installation
areas studied. The institute sought to contrast DDESS and LEA schools
to guide the panel's analysis and process for making recommendations.
Nonetheless, the basis for these recommendations is difficult to
ascertain based on study report documents. The study indicates that DOD
could incur significant costs, as well as face legal and other issues
related to the transfer of schools to LEAs. Finally, the panel
recognizes that such transfers would have to be done on an individual,
negotiated basis.
Transfer Study Contrasts DDESS and LEA Schools to Guide Expert Panel's
Recommendations:
The Donahue Institute study built on the work of prior studies,
examining many transfer alternatives previously considered in earlier
studies ranging from the status quo to the transfer of educational
programs to LEAs. While various issues addressed in the study were
similar to those previously studied--such as facility conditions and
remediation costs and identifying transfer options and impediments to
their use--it sought to make a comparative assessment of DDESS and
surrounding LEA schools to provide the basis for informed decision
making. The report noted that the expert panel established the
following guiding principles to guide its recommendations:
* All students transferred from DDESS to local public schools must be
provided comparable educational programs, services and facilities.
* School communities gain from diversity.
* Cost effectiveness of government. Any transfer alternative must be
cost-effective not only to DODEA, but to the state and local entities
involved.
* Deference to the needs of younger students. It is rarely advisable to
transfer or otherwise disrupt the educational process of very young
students.
* Any transfer of DDESS will include just and reasonable compensation
to the LEA for operational and facilities costs.
* Each installation/LEA will be considered separately.
The report noted that the experts stressed that while each one was
important, no single principle or criterion would necessarily rule in
or out a transfer alternative. Rather, the totality of all financial
and non-financial factors was carefully considered, evaluated, and
factored into each recommendation. The panel also developed feasibility
rules associated with any transfer decisions to help assure basic
equity and fairness for the students, families, and communities that
might be affected by the study. Appendix IV includes summary
information on the rules and alternatives considered.
The expert panel recommended that the educational responsibility for
most schools in 10 of the 14 installation areas be transferred to the
LEAs, and with use of DDESS operated facilities in most instances, as
noted in table 1.
Table 1: Expert Panel's Recommendations:
State(s) Affected: Alabama;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Rucker;
Number of Schools: 2;
Affected Local Education Agency: Daleville City Schools; Enterprise
City Schools; Ozark City Schools;
Study Recommendation: Status quo.
State(s) Affected: Alabama;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Maxwell Air Force Base;
Number of Schools: 1;
Affected Local Education Agency: Montgomery County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Status quo.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Benning;
Number of Schools: 7;
Affected Local Education Agency: Muscogee County Schools; Chattahoochee
County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Robins Air Force Base;
Number of Schools: 1;
Affected Local Education Agency: Houston County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Stewart;
Number of Schools: 2;
Affected Local Education Agency: Liberty County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: Kentucky/Tennessee;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Campbell;
Number of Schools: 8;
Affected Local Education Agency: Clarksville-Montgomery County;
Christian County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: Kentucky;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Knox;
Number of Schools: 8;
Affected Local Education Agency: Hardin County Schools; Meade County
Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: New York;
Principal Installation(s) Served: U.S. Military Academy, West Point;
Number of Schools: 2;
Affected Local Education Agency: Highland Falls Central School District;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: North Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Bragg;
Number of Schools: 9;
Affected Local Education Agency: Cumberland County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: South Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Jackson;
Number of Schools: 3;
Affected Local Education Agency: Richland County 2 School District;
Study Recommendation: Status quo.
State(s) Affected: North Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Camp Lejeune;
Number of Schools: 8;
Affected Local Education Agency: Onslow County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Transfer responsibility for schooling to LEA.
State(s) Affected: South Carolina (Laurel Bay);
Principal Installation(s) Served: Marine Corps Air Station; Parris
Island; Naval Hospital;
Number of Schools: 2[A];
Affected Local Education Agency: Beaufort County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Status quo for Pre-K-3 grade;
transfer grade 4-6.
State(s) Affected: Virginia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center;
Number of Schools: 1;
Affected Local Education Agency: King George County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Status quo.
State(s) Affected: Virginia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Quantico Marine Corps Base;
Affected Local Education Agency: Prince William County Schools;
Study Recommendation: Status quo Pre-K-grade 3;
transfer grades 4-12 to LEA.
State(s) Affected: Total;
Number of Schools: 58;
Source: Expert panel's recommendations report.
[A] A third DDESS school, not included in the transfer study, has
subsequently become operational, increasing the total DDESS domestic
schools to 59.
[End of table]
The expert panel recommended transferring most school programs to LEAs
with use of existing school facilities on the military installations,
but with DOD continuing to be responsible for funding maintenance,
operations, and improvements for most facilities. The panel of expert's
recommendation for continued DOD responsibility for the facilities was
attributed to legal difficulties the expert panel believed existed in
some states that could prohibit LEAs from expending funds for schools
located on federal lands, as well as the recognized need to provide
reasonable assistance to the LEAs. In total, LEAs were projected to use
45 DDESS operated schools, but take title to only 1 of them.
The recommendations included just a few exceptions to the recommended
transfer approach wherein DOD would continue to maintain the school
facilities. For two South Carolina (Laurel Bay area) school programs
recommended for transfer, one school would be retained by DDESS to
continue educating Pre-K through grade 3 students, and one school would
be transferred to the LEA through a title transfer--the only title
transfer recommended. In another instance--involving Quantico, Virginia
schools and the Prince William County Schools--responsibility for
educating about fifty percent of the school children would be
transferred, but without any of the school facilities. The Prince
William County LEA reportedly had indicated an unwillingness to use the
DDESS school facilities. At West Point, New York, responsibility for
educating all children would be transferred to the LEA and it would use
only one DDESS facility.
Notwithstanding the panel of expert recommendation that DOD continue to
fund maintenance and operation for most of the school facilities, we
found that clarification of ownership of DDESS-operated school
facilities between DOD and the U.S. Department of Education needs to be
addressed. In completing this review we found that despite DOD having
assumed responsibility for operating the current DDESS facilities from
the U.S. Department of Education many years ago, a majority of the 58
school facilities had not been formally transferred to DOD. U.S.
Department of Education officials told us they were working to transfer
the schools to DOD. Resolution of this issue is important to ensure
proper accounting for property in the appropriate agency's property
records. At the same time, we also learned that any efforts by DOD to
transfer schools to LEAs where it has clear ownership of the property
could be more difficult and time consuming than for the Department of
Education since the latter has specific legislative authority
authorizing such direct transfers.[Footnote 20]
Lack Of Clarity for Selecting LEAs Over Some DDESS Schools And
Proposing Transfers of Most Schools:
While the methodology used by the Donahue Institute and its expert
panel reportedly guided data gathering, analysis, and development of
recommendations, the expert panel's summary comments and various
binders of data comprising the study report do not always make clear
the basis for the panel's recommendations. The report stated that the
panel agreed that no single factor would be the basis of a decision to
accept or reject a specific alternative. How the panel of experts
evaluated the various factors in order to come up with recommendations
is not always clear based on information provided in the various study
documents. Two of the expert panel members we contacted acknowledged
that the recommendations were subjective but based on all the members'
collective expertise and experiences.
Moreover, we found instances where data for selected quality measures
such as teacher to student ratios and teacher qualifications included
in various study report documents provide mixed pictures of comparative
quality factors between DDESS and LEA schools.[Footnote 21] For
example, in a few instances, the panel recommended transfers to LEA
districts even though the district schools were considered to be
"underperforming" while another adjacent LEA's schools were considered
"overperforming" and with lower per pupil costs; or a LEA was
recommended over DDESS even though the LEA's per pupil costs were
higher and its schools were cited as mostly "underperforming."[Footnote
22] Appendix V highlights examples of the divergent information
contained in various transfer study documents for four installations.
DOD Would Achieve Savings, but Some Costs Would Be Shifted to
Department of Education and LEAs:
In transferring the education responsibility to LEAs, DOD would achieve
savings in costs it currently incurs by operating schools, but many of
these costs would be shifted to others.[Footnote 23] However, study
data indicate that DOD could incur costs of about $125 million to
repair and upgrade existing DDESS school facilities,.[Footnote 24]
Moreover, DOD would also continue to have ongoing costs to maintain the
school facilities as the education programs are operated by the LEAs
under the alternative recommended by the panel of experts. At the same
time, given various pending changes in basing arrangements that will
likely increase the number of dependent students at bases in the United
States, we believe that the facility costs contained in the study would
be subject to change before any potential decision to approve the study
recommendations was implemented.
The study, based on data provided by the Department of Education,
assumes that many costs would be passed on to the state and local
governments, and that LEAs would be eligible for impact aid from the
federal Department of Education. [Footnote 25] While the study makes
various assumptions about likely impact aid to LEAs, we are not able to
affirm the reliability of those estimates based on the data provided.
Impact aid is a program that is subject to annual appropriations and
not an entitlement; and, based on our discussions with Department of
Education officials, the amount of impact aid to which an LEA would be
entitled is formula based, and not easily calculated in advance. Also,
as we note elsewhere in this report, various communities surrounding
military bases in the United States are expected to experience a
significant influx of military dependents over the next few years as
DOD restations many military personnel from bases overseas to ones in
the continental United States. This could place an increased burden on
the Department of Education's impact aid program as it distributes
resources across more LEAs. In addition, states and LEAs would bear an
additional burden if impact aid funds were not increased.
The recent study, as did prior studies, found unique circumstances that
could impact costs and would require resolution on a site-by-site
basis, should an effort be made to transfer educational
responsibilities from DDESS to LEAs. For example, Fort Campbell has a
large DDESS student population, with eight schools in two states, and
agreements would have to be worked out to permit the students to cross
jurisdictional boundaries to attend the LEA administered school. In a
couple of other instances, DDESS schools for an installation may fall
within the jurisdiction of two counties and special arrangements would
be needed to enable students whose on-base residency falls in one
county to attend schools in the other county. In other instances, the
study report noted limitations or caps on numbers of students eligible
for special education in certain LEAs compared with those in DDESS
schools that would need to be addressed. Thus, individual negotiations
at each DDESS location and LEA would be required to address these and
other issues.
Other Issues Could Impact Decision Making:
Apart from issues identified in the transfer study, there are other
factors/issues that were not present when the transfer study began that
could impact DDESS and LEA schools and further complicate school
transfer decisions. These factors relate to planned overseas basing
changes, major force structure changes planned by the Army, the
domestic base closure process, and DOD efforts to privatize housing.
The study did not consider ongoing DOD plans to realign U.S. bases
overseas and announced plans to restation about 70,000 military
personnel and approximately 100,000 family members currently stationed
overseas to bases in the United States. However, the details on where
many of these personnel and associated units are likely to be
restationed will not be known until the 2005 base realignment and
closure decisions are made later this year. Nevertheless, this rebasing
effort could result in significant increases in populations of various
bases with many new students requiring education by LEAs. To the extent
DDESS programs are affected, this could complicate any negotiations
with LEAs regarding assumption of on-base DDESS programs. Likewise, the
extent to which DDESS installations will be impacted by the base
closure process will not be known until later this year.
The study also does not reflect efforts under way by the Army to
reorganize its force structure, creating new units of action with the
potential for increased numbers of personnel assigned to selected
military bases in the United States. A recent Congressional Research
Service report summarized the magnitude of this effort.[Footnote 26] It
noted that, "...in what the Army describes as the 'most significant
Army restructuring in the past 50 years,' the Army intends to redesign
its current 10 active duty division force to a 43 or 48 brigade-level
unit of action or UA force by FY 2007." This conversion is expected to
add over 2,000 personnel to many of these former brigades at various
installations. A few of these new units of action tentatively have been
identified for installations in the United States where some DDESS
schools operate.
DOD has appropriately said that it is postponing decision making on the
results of the transfer study until after base closure decisions are
finalized later this year. Importantly, the transfer study, in
examining educational expenditures, largely considered the cost impact
on LEAs from a potential transfer decision on an incremental cost
basis. A large influx of students into LEA or DDESS schools as a result
of the above factors could require a fuller assessment of funding and
facility needs than provided for in the existing study.
The transfer study partly touched on current DOD efforts to privatize
housing on its military bases, but study officials recognize that the
full impact of that initiative was not available for consideration in
their report. Additionally, DOD housing officials told us that previous
plans for housing privatization may need to be adjusted as efforts are
made to ensure adequate housing for the thousands of military personnel
scheduled to be redeployed to the United States.
Conclusions:
The transfer study has a number of limitations that present less than a
clear-cut answer to the feasibility and desirability of transferring
educational responsibilities from DDESS to LEAs. Moreover, there are
important issues not addressed in the study such as the anticipated
restationing of thousands of military personnel and their dependents
from overseas to U.S. bases, the Army's planned force restructuring,
and the domestic base closure process that could stress existing
educational capacities and require expanded capabilities at affected
bases. DOD has appropriately said that it is postponing decision making
on the results of the transfer study until after base closure decisions
are finalized later this year. Until DOD obtains a fuller understanding
of all these plans and time frames the likely financial impact on DDESS
and LEAs remains unknown. Without that assessment, the financial
assessment completed by the current transfer study is incomplete.
Fundamentally, a decision on whether to transfer educational
responsibilities from DDESS to LEAs is a policy decision that requires
balancing fiscal, educational, and other quality of life
considerations. Once the results of the domestic base closure process
and overseas rebasing plans are known, a decision on the school
transfer issue should be made sooner rather than later to ensure
adequate planning, funding and siting of new school facilities in the
United States that may be needed to support increasing populations of
military dependent students. Regardless, there needs to be proper
accounting for the school facilities in federal property records.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Should a decision be made to transfer some or all of DDESS domestic
schools to LEAs, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness require that such efforts be accompanied by a more complete
assessment of the impact of troop redeployments and other force
structure changes on educational facility requirements on affected
installations and surrounding communities to facilitate needed facility
and operational planning by DOD, the Department of Education and LEAs
to meet changing needs. Regardless of transfer decisions, we recommend
that the Secretary ensure DDESS school facilities are properly
reflected in DOD's property records and removed from the Department of
Education records.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) concurred with our
recommendations. The department's response indicated that any decision
to transfer educational responsibility to local educational authorities
would occur after the base closure process is complete and would
involve consultations with the military services and Congress, and that
it is working with the Department of Education to ensure school
facilities are properly recorded in real property records. However, the
department took exception with the title of our report because it
believed we raised issues that were related to events occurring after
the study began such as the formulation of the rebasing plan, which
were outside the scope of the transfer study. We believe, however, that
the title correctly captures the limitations of the DOD-sponsored study
as both having to do with external issues affecting the study that
became known after the study began as well as limitations with the
study that made unclear the basis for the transfer recommendations.
Therefore, we did not change our title. The department separately
provided various technical comments which are incorporated where
appropriate. DOD's comments are included in appendix VI of this report.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which DOD has established a school closure
policy and the effect such policies have on quality-of-life issues for
servicemembers and their dependents, we discussed the issue with
cognizant officials within DODEA and other departmental officials. We
obtained and reviewed data on DDESS school closures in prior years and
the basis for those closures, as well as similar information from the
U.S. Department of Education concerning schools owned by that
department serving military dependents. We also met with education
officials to discuss administration of federal impact aid and learn
about their experience in transferring federally owned schools to LEAs.
To obtain DOD perspectives concerning the issues of dependent schools
as a quality of life issue, we obtained and reviewed the Department's
July 2002, publication entitled A New Social Compact: A Reciprocal
Partnership Between The Department of Defense, Servicemembers and
Families. The document was issued under the auspices of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy)
providing departmental perspective on a range of quality of life
issues, including schools. We contrasted that with information obtained
from the Department's Housing and Privatization Office on criteria for
considering commercial activities performed by the department for
potential public/private competitions under OMB Circular A-76.
Likewise, we contrasted that information with other information
regarding departmental efforts to more rigorously assess what functions
are considered core to warfighting efforts with policy direction to
consider those not designated for potential outsourcing.
To assess the transfer study completed for DODEA by the Donahue
Institute, including the clarity of the basis for conclusions reached,
the overall financial impact, and issues identified but not resolved by
the study, we first reviewed the various summary reports prepared by
the Donahue Institute, the results of the facility condition assessment
performed by Parkhill, Smith, and Cooper, Inc., and a summary of the
phase 3 quality-of-life assessment. We discussed the transfer study
design and methodology with officials of DODEA, the Donahue Institute
and two of the three members of the panel of experts employed by the
institute to review its data and to develop study recommendations.
Likewise, we also reviewed the results of previous transfer studies to
understand similarities and differences between previous studies and
the recent study effort. To assess the basis for recommendations made
by the expert panel, we examined the data developed for the panel's use
that was contained in the Donahue Institute's various study summary
documents to try to gauge the basis for the recommendations and
determine how clearly the recommendations were linked to the summary
information provided. Given time constraints, we did not attempt to
validate financial and other quantitative data included in the study,
but we did review the steps taken by the Donahue Institute to verify
its data and analysis and to compare some key data against other
available data sets to corroborate its relative accuracy. We also
reviewed summaries of interviews completed by the institute with
leaders in affected DDESS schools and local education agencies to
confirm and better understand the range of issues associated with the
issue of potential transfer of the schools to LEAs--as well as similar
information contained in prior studies. We obtained other relevant
statistical data about DDESS schools from DODEA and made limited checks
to assure ourselves that the data was sufficiently accurate for the
purposes of our review.
To frame other issues not addressed in the transfer study that could
impact decision making regarding the future of DOD's domestic
elementary and secondary schools, we relied on insights gained from
other ongoing GAO assessments in the Defense area that had the
potential to impact dependent educational requirements on military
bases and confirmed our assumptions through discussions with cognizant
Defense officials.
We conducted this review from January to April 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittees on
Defense and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; Chairmen and
Ranking Minority Members, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Quality of Life; Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the
Secretary of Education; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-5581, or my Assistant Director, Michael
Kennedy, at (202) 512-8333 if you or your staff have any further
questions regarding this report. Major contributors to this report were
Maewanda MichaelJackson, Hilary Murrish, and R.K. Wild of GAO's Defense
Capabilities and Management team, Dr. Nagla'a D. El-Hodiri of GAO's
Education and Workforce team, and Julia Matta, Office of General
Counsel.
Signed by:
Barry W. Holman, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Expert Panel Members:
The DDESS Transfer study completed by the Donahue Institute of the
University of Massachusetts indicated that the results of its data and
study component analysis were presented to a panel of three leading
national experts on educational administration and finance. The study
report provides the following information regarding the three experts:
* Kern Alexander, Ed.D. Dr. Alexander is a national expert in the field
of school finance. He is Chair of the Board of Editors for the Journal
of Education Finance. He served as director of the Institute for
Educational Finance at the University of Florida, and as Director of
the National Educational Finance Project while it conducted a
nationwide study of educational fiscal policy involving all 50 state
education agencies. He has published numerous books, book chapters and
articles on school finance. He is currently a professor at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
* Richard Salmon, Ed.D. Dr. Salmon is a nationally recognized expert in
the fields of school finance and Federal Impact Aid issues. He is a
professor at Virginia Tech and has authored numerous textbooks, book
chapters, and articles on public school finance. Dr. Salmon is a member
of the Board of Editors for The Journal of Education Finance. He also
consults for the U.S. Department of Education Bureau of Impact Aid and
has testified for the department in several federal trials. He served
in the United States Navy for more than 20 years, retiring as Commander
from the Naval Reserve; and:
* Deborah A. Verstegen, Ph.D. Dr. Verstegen is a national expert in the
field of school finance. She is a professor of education at the
University of Virginia, where she teaches a number of courses including
Educational Finance Policy and Practice, School Finance, and
Educational Policy Analysis. She has authored many books, book
chapters, and refereed journal articles and monographs on education
finance. She is past editor and currently serves on the editorial staff
of The Journal of Education Finance. She has completed a study of all
50-state school finance systems for the Education Commission of the
States, entitled "School Finance at a Glance."
[End of section]
Appendix II: Department of Defense Elementary and Secondary (DDESS)
Schools in the Continental United States:
State(s) Affected: Alabama;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Rucker;
Number of Schools[A]: 2;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 821;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Daleville City Schools;
Enterprise City Schools; Ozark City Schools.
State(s) Affected: Alabama;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Maxwell Air Force Base;
Number of Schools[A]: 1;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 448;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Montgomery County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Benning;
Number of Schools[A]: 7;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 2,472;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Muscogee County Schools;
Chattahoochee County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Robins Air Force Base;
Number of Schools[A]: 1;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 398;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Houston County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Georgia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Stewart;
Number of Schools[A]: 2;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 1,440;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Liberty County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Kentucky/Tennessee;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Campbell;
Number of Schools[A]: 8;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 4,240;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Clarksville-Montgomery County;
Christian County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Kentucky;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Knox;
Number of Schools[A]: 8;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 2,784;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Hardin County Schools; Meade
County Schools.
State(s) Affected: New York;
Principal Installation(s) Served: U.S. Military Academy, West Point;
Number of Schools[A]: 2;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 772;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Highland Falls Central School
District.
State(s) Affected: North Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Bragg;
Number of Schools[A]: 9;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 4,352;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Cumberland County Schools.
State(s) Affected: South Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Fort Jackson;
Number of Schools[A]: 3;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 715;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Richland County School District.
State(s) Affected: North Carolina;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Camp Lejeune;
Number of Schools[A]: 8;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 3,243;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Onslow County Schools.
State(s) Affected: South Carolina (Laurel Bay);
Principal Installation(s) Served: Marine Corps Air Station; Parris
Island; Naval Hospital;
Number of Schools[A]: 3[B];
Number of Students as of January 2005: 967;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Beaufort County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Virginia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center;
Number of Schools[A]: 1;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 221;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): King George County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Virginia;
Principal Installation(s) Served: Quantico Marine Corps Base;
Number of Schools[A]: 4;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 791;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): Prince William County Schools.
State(s) Affected: Total;
Principal Installation(s) Served: [Empty];
Number of Schools[A]: 59;
Number of Students as of January 2005: 23,664;
Adjacent Local Education Agency(ies): [Empty].
Source: DOD.
[A] These consist of 47 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 1 junior
high school, 1 combination elementary/middle school, 1 combination
middle/high school, and 3 separate high schools.
[B] Transfer study only covered 2 of the three schools; the third
school became operational after the study was begun.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Prior Studies on Transferring DDESS Schools to LEAs:
* A December 1986 study entitled DOD Schools: Funding and Operating
Alternatives for Education of Dependents, by GAO. Congress, in enacting
the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-407),
expressed the view that the exclusive federal responsibility for
funding and operating the military dependents' schools might no longer
be necessary, and directed us to determine the most suitable
alternative for funding and operating these schools.
* A July 1988 study entitled The Transfer Of Section 6
Schools:[Footnote 27] A Case by Case Analysis. The study was completed
by Rand under the sponsorship of the Assistant Secretary of Defense/
Force Management and Personnel as the result of Congress incorporating
into the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1986, a request to
the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan "which provides for the
orderly transfer, not later than July 1990, of all Section 6 schools to
the appropriate local school districts of the states in which such
schools are located." DOD later reported to the Congress, in December
1988, that based on the results of a detailed study of the schools, it
had decided to suspend efforts to transfer educational responsibilities
for the schools to LEAs.
* A 1991 study entitled Section 6 Schools in Six States: Eleven Case
Studies of Transfer Issues. This study was also completed by Rand under
sponsorship of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and
Personnel), as a supplement to the earlier Rand study.
* A March 1995 study entitled Construction, Repair, and Rehabilitation
Needs of Dependent School Facilities Located on Military Installations
in the United States. This study was jointly prepared by the DOD and
the Department of Education. According to the study, it was the result
of language contained in the House Committee on Appropriations Report
on the Fiscal Year 1993 DOD Appropriations Bill, Committee Report
Number 102-627, dated June 29, 1992, which requested DOD and the
Department of Education to conduct a study to assess: the condition of
school facilities on military installations in the United States; the
requirements for remedial maintenance to bring school facilities up to
an acceptable condition, including meeting applicable building codes;
the feasibility and desirability of transferring ownership of
facilities to local school districts that provide educational services
at military installations; and a funding plan for correcting the
maintenance backlog over the next 5 years and the new construction
backlog over the next 10 years. The study included existing on-base
dependent school facilities owned by DOD or the Department of Education
and operated by DOD or LEAs.
* An October 1997 study entitled A Study of Schools Serving Military
Families in the U.S.: Education Quality, Federal Administration, and
Funding. The study was completed by the Survey & Program Evaluation
Division of the Defense Manpower Data Center. It was conducted in
response to a request contained in the Conference Report on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337), asking the Secretary of Defense to collect information concerning
the possibility of transferring DOD dependent schools to local
education agencies. The study included results of a survey of military
parents on the quality of education provided by DOD dependent schools
and local education agencies and their perspective on the transfer
issue.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Transfer Study Rules and Alternatives:
The transfer study notes that "the deeper the study team got into the
data collection and site visit process, the more evident it became that
a limited set of universal principles or rules was needed to help all
parties achieve two important and complementary purposes. The first
purpose was to assure basic equity and fairness for the students,
families and communities that might be affected by the outcomes of
particular transfer alternatives; the second was to assure that the
panel of national experts ends up with a package of findings and
analysis that was sufficiently manageable so it could produce its
recommendations. It noted that while exceptions might be appropriate on
a case-by-case basis, applying the following rules to all installations
helped achieve these dual ends of equity and practicality:
* It would be unfair for some students at the same grade level to
transfer to the LEA district while other students in the same grade
remain on base. Therefore, at any installation, any decision affecting
one DDESS school shall apply to all DDESS schools with the same or
overlapping grade levels;
* To maintain continuity and effective education, it is not feasible to
transfer students at a particular grade and then return them to the
DDESS curriculum at a higher grade. Therefore, if a transfer is made at
one grade, all succeeding higher grades must transfer as well;
* If a DDESS elementary school with a pre-kindergarten (pre-K) program
is transferred to an LEA that does not offer a pre-K program, DDESS
will continue to offer pre-K services, using either on-site or off-site
resources; and:
* It would be both inefficient and detrimental to educational
consistency to have some DDESS schools run under contract with the LEA
while others on the same installation do not. Therefore, if a contract
or coterminous alternative is chosen for any DDESS school, that
alternative should apply to all schools on the installation.
The study team developed a set of transfer alternatives for
consideration including:
* Maintaining the status quo, i.e. DDESS schools would continue to
operate as they have in the past.
* Transfer responsibilities for the educational program to the LEA
along with facilities being used by DDESS. The LEA would accept full
responsibility for educating military children and for the future
upkeep of the facilities. It assumed the installation school facilities
would be brought up to LEA maintenance and building standards prior to
LEA occupancy.
* Transfer without facilities. DDESS students would transfer to the
neighboring LEA and integrated into the existing school facilities.
* Contract with the LEA to provide educational services on the
installation.
* Create a public school district within the installation, coterminous
with its existing boundaries (coterminous alternative). Under that
assumption, all DDESS schools on base would be included in the newly
created LEA. DOD would provide the LEA with title of DDESS facilities
(except where noted otherwise), and buildings and facilities would be
brought up to LEA standards before being transferred to the LEA.
These were similar to alternatives considered in some prior studies.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Differing Perspectives on Selected DDESS and LEA Schools
Contained in Various Transfer Study Report Documents:
The DDESS Transfer Study Report prepared by the Donahue Institute with
its supporting data is contained in multiple binders. The
recommendations report, prepared by the panel of experts, are contained
in a binder sometimes referred to as the "green book". Underpinning
that were additional binders prepared by the Donahue Institute staff.
They included a so-called book of narratives--referred to as the "white
book"--providing an overview of each domestic DDESS school and adjacent
LEAs. Additional information on individual DDESS schools and adjacent
LEAS is contained in multiple "blue binders" summarizing financial,
performance, and data on the educational quality of individual schools.
Additional financial information is then contained in multiple "yellow
binders" labeled appendixes.
Our examination of individual recommendations and supporting
information provided in individual study binders sometimes provided
what appeared to be divergent pictures of school performance, quality,
and cost factors that did not always fully comport with information
contained in the recommendations report. Below are key examples.
Fort Benning: The Recommendations Report suggests transferring
responsibility for schools to Chattahoochee County vice Muscogee County
(five of seven DDESS schools are within Chattahoochee County). It noted
that installation officials had expressed concerns about quality of
Chattahoochee County Schools, but noted DDESS students would represent
the vast majority of student enrollment within the LEA. It expected
that most students would still be educated on base and most teachers
still have opportunity to teach. It said the pupil-teacher ratios and
the per pupil expenditures of the DDESS and Chattahoochee County are
already comparable (GAO note: data suggest less comparability in costs
than stated here).
The White Book points out that salaries and benefits make up 90
percent, 86 percent, and 84 percent of the Fort Benning DDESS,
Chattahoochee County, and Muscogee County school budgets. The White
Book indicates per pupil expenditures of approximately $8,244, $7,345,
and $5,956 for Fort Benning DDESS, Chattahoochee County, and Muscogee
County respectively.
The White Book points out that Fort Benning DDESS students test results
ranged from the 52ND to 65TH percentile for grades 3, 5, and 8.
Chattahoochee County and Muscogee County test scores were mostly above
predicted scores for grades 3, 5, and 8.
The Blue Book shows that four of the Benning DDESS schools were deemed
underperforming and three overperformed. It confirms Muscogee test
scores were mostly deemed over performing for 5TH grade but some
underperforming for 8TH grade, while Chattahoochee's were deemed
underperforming for 8TH grade.
Fort Campbell: The Recommendations Report suggests transferring
responsibility for schools to LEA, Christian County versus Clarksville-
Montgomery County. The report notes that considering all factors,
Christian County, Kentucky has higher quality measures than Clarksville-
Montgomery County, Tennessee.
The White Book notes salaries and benefits make up 88 percent, 64
percent and 64 percent respectively of the Fort Campbell DDESS, and
Clarksville-Montgomery County and Christian County school budgets. Fort
Campbell's per pupil expenditure, which is projected to be about $7,962
in fiscal year 04, has been rising in recent years due to increasing
costs and decreasing enrollment (reason for decreasing enrollment not
indicated). Clarksville-Montgomery's per pupil expenditure in fiscal
year 2004 is $5,166 but will decline because of recent budget cuts.
Christian County's per pupil cost is about $ 6,589 in fiscal year 2004
but notes escalating salary costs coupled with relatively stable
enrollment will likely lead to increased per pupil expenditure.
The White Book indicates that Fort Campbell DDESS students performed at
or above the 60TH percentile for most subjects and grades. Performance
of LEA schools of both districts was mixed. Clarksville-Montgomery
matched or exceeded predicted scores in seven of nine instances cited.
The Christian County matched or exceeded in five of nine instances
cited. However, the White Book also notes that Fort Campbell schools
have a lower student-to-teacher ratio than either LEA and have a higher
percentage of DDESS teachers (82 percent) with advanced degrees than
Christian County (68 percent), or Clarksville (52 percent).
The Blue Book rates Fort Campbell schools as mixed in terms of over or
under performing. Same was true for Christian County schools. The Blue
Book rates Clarksville-Montgomery County schools as primarily
underperforming.
Fort Jackson: The Recommendations Report suggests status quo notes
reductions in state funding of education over recent two years. It
notes that Richland County's schools are already over capacity, and the
LEA has little physical room to expand its facilities. (GAO note: Why
this is a discriminating factor is unclear since most transfer
recommendations are based on use of DDESS schools.) The Green Book also
notes that "a transfer to the LEA could jeopardize the quality of
education now received by students at Fort Jackson, who, as mostly
younger students, would face substantial disruption of educational
services in the event of a transfer." (GAO note: report is not clear
why younger students at Jackson would face substantial disruption yet
the same issue is not raised in most other transfer recommendations.)
The White Book notes that because Fort Jackson does not track salaries
and benefits for each type of school employee, salaries and benefits
were allocated based on the teaching roster and an average salary and
benefit expenditure. School costs were not laid out comparably to those
at other installations. However, it projects approximately 90 percent,
73 percent of Fort Jackson DDESS and LEA budgets respectively to be
spent on salaries and benefits. It indicated there was per pupil
expenditures of $10,700 for DDESS versus $6,165 for LEA.
The White Book shows Fort Jackson scores on Tera Nova tests scores
reported were lower than recorded for many other DDESS systems for
grades 3 and 5. LEA schools were shown in the White Book as exceeding
predicted test scores for grades 3 and 5.
The Blue Book does not contain school level testing for Fort Jackson
schools so doesn't indicate whether they were viewed as over or under
performing. It shows LEA mixed in terms of over or under performing for
grade 6 but over performing for grade 8 (at one school).
Fort Knox: The Recommendations Report recommends transferring
responsibility to adjacent LEA, Hardin County, versus LEA Meade County.
However, the report notes that while the level of education quality
indicators for the two LEAs is generally comparable, Hardin County's
per pupil expenditure exceeds that of Meade County in the instructional
area. This indicates Hardin County is larger and more capable than
Meade County to absorb DDESS students, and the executive leadership of
Hardin County appeared more receptive to a transfer of DDESS students.
The White Book indicates Hardin is geographically closer to
installation housing and because of this proximity, Hardin has a closer
relationship with Fort Knox.
The White Book projects that 88 percent, 78 percent, and 75 percent of
Fort Knox DDESS, Meade County and Hardin County LEAs school budgets
respectively were spent on salaries and benefits. This indicated per
pupil expenditures of $8, 454 for DDESS versus $5,108 in Meade County,
and $5,493 in Hardin County.
The White Book shows Fort Knox students scored above the 50TH
percentile for all subjects and grades in Terra Nova testing. At the
same time, the performance information provided indicated that many
Hardin County grades scored lower than predicted on testing, while
Meade County grades nearly always scored higher than predicted.
The Blue Book indicates that Fort Knox DDESS schools presented a mixed
picture in terms of over or under performing on performance tests. At
the same time, all Hardin County schools were cited as underperforming
in testing for grades 3 and 6 and over for one school with grade 9
scores; at the same time, while Meade County schools were identified as
over performing for grades 6 and 9.
West Point: The Recommendations Report suggests transferring
responsibility to LEA, Highland Falls Central School District, but
grades PK-4 remain in the current school. The report notes that in this
case, the LEA had a higher per pupil expenditure and a lower pupil-
teacher-ratio than DDESS, both of which are quality indicators. The
report said the recommendation for transfer was due, in part, to the
fact that the middle school facility needs to be replaced immediately.
The White Book projects that 84 percent and 76 percent of West Point
DDESS and Highland Falls school budgets respectively were spent on
salaries and benefits. However, it notes that the LEA's budget has seen
10 percent growth, with costs for health and liability insurance and
special education and retirement system costs rising. It also indicated
per pupil expenditures of $10, 957 for West Point DDESS (among the
highest of all DDESS districts mainly due to salaries) and $11,196 for
Highland Falls. It notes that this is the only district where the per
pupil expenditure is greater than the corresponding DDESS per pupil
expenditure.
The White Book shows West Point DDESS schools scored in the 70-80TH
percentiles in Tera Nova testing. Conversely, Highland Falls Schools
indicated almost all (three of four) test scores were lower than
predicted.
The Blue Book indicates that West Point DDESS schools over performed on
performance tests while Highland Falls schools were mostly cited as
underperforming.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
Mr. Barry Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Holman:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "DOD Schools: Limitations in
DoD-Sponsored Study on Transfer Alternatives Underscore Need for
Additional Assessment," dated April 12, 2005 (GAO Code 350631/GAO-05-
469). The Department has reviewed and concurs with the subject draft
report as written.
The Department, however, does take exception to the title of the draft.
Use of the phrase "Limitations in DoD-Sponsored Study" may lead the
reader to assume that the study failed to address issues that arose
following the study period or that they were explicitly outside the
study's scope. As the GAO accurately reports, there were other factors,
most not present when the study began, that could further complicate
school transfer decisions.
Responses to the report recommendations are shown in the enclosure. The
Department would like to express its appreciation to the GAO staff for
their professionalism and assistance during this review.
Sincerely:
Signed by:
Charles S. Abell:
Principal Deputy:
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO Draft Report-Dated April 12, 2005:
GAO Code 350631/GAO-05-469:
"DOD SCHOOLS: Limitations in DOD-Sponsored Study on Transfer
Alternatives Underscore Need for Additional Assessment:
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommenations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that, should a decision be made
to transfer some or all of the Domestic Dependent Elementary and
Secondary Schools (DDESS) to local education agencies (LEAs), the
Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), require that such efforts be
accompanied by a more complete assessment of the impact of troop
redeployments and other force structure changes on educational facility
requirements on affected installations and surrounding communities to
facilitate needed facility and operational planning by the Department
of Education and LEAs to meet changing needs.
DOD Response: Concur. As GAO has pointed out, the DDESS Transfer Study
began prior to Iraqi Freedom, as well as prior to planned overseas
basing changes, major force structures planned by the Services, and
domestic base closures. Based on these activities, the Department took
specific action to suspend all deliberations on the study
recommendations until the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG)
Commission recommendations take legal effect. During any future
discussions and before any decision is reached, the Military Services
will be given opportunity to provide input. Further discussions will
take place with Congress before any decision is implemented that would
transfer students to local education authorities.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that regardless of transfer
decisions, the Secretary of Defense ensure the DDESS facilities are
properly reflected in DoD's property records and removed from the
Department of Education records.
DOD Response: Concur. The Department of Defense Education Activity has
conferred with the U.S. Department of Education and is currently
undertaking an effort to locate and document the land grant permits for
all of the DDESS schools. Officials are working closely with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and installation real estate resources to
complete this task. Once the permits have been authenticated, action
will be taken to clear the property from Department of Education
records and to record it on the books of the appropriate agency in
conjunction with final transfer recommendations.
(350631):
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOD also operates 165 elementary and secondary schools overseas.
[2] DODEA, the umbrella agency created in 1994 to oversee the DOD
school systems, operates under the direction of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense, Military Community and Family Policy, and the
Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness. Subordinate
organizations within DODEA are the Department of Defense Domestic
Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) system, which
operates schools in the continental United States, Puerto Rico and
Guam, and the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) system,
which operates schools on military bases overseas.
[3] The Donahue Institute is the public service, outreach, and economic
development unit of the University of Massachusetts President's Office.
[4] See appendix I for biographical information on the panel members.
[5] Pub. L. No. 108-375.
[6] Enclosure 6, Manpower Mix Criteria Codes, Office of the Secretary
of Defense memo, "2003 Commercial and Inherently Governmental
Activities Inventory Data Call" (Dec. 16, 2003).
[7] The Donahue Institute used student performance on statewide/DDESS
system-wide academic tests to measure school performance. The institute
developed a performance index that took into account the socio-
demographic effect of the percentage of students receiving free or
reduced price lunches on a school's performance. It used a regression
approach to estimate this effect on schools in each state by subject
and grade. The institute was then able to categorize each school's
performance as "overperforming" or "underperforming" relative to the
school's predicted performance given its percentage of students
receiving free or reduced price lunches.
[8] LEAs receive federal payments to compensate for the loss in tax
revenues due to the presence of tax-exempt federal property and
increased school enrollments due to federal activities.
[9] Resolution of this issue is important toward ensuring proper
accounting for property in the appropriate agency's property records
and limiting the government's exposure to legal liabilities.
[10] Overseas schools were added following World War II when the
military established schools for the children of its servicemembers
stationed in Europe and the Pacific.
[11] These are operations and maintenance funds, and do not include
procurement and military construction funding.
[12] See GAO, DOD Schools: Funding and Operating Alternatives for
Education of Dependents, GAO/HRD-87-16 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10,
1986).
[13] This represents some reduction in such schools from an available
listing of such schools contained in a previous transfer study
conducted 10 years ago. Some reductions occurred because of base
closure, demolition, or transfers to LEAs.
[14] Appendix III provides a list and summary of relevant previous
reports that examined the potential for transferring schools from DOD
to LEAs.
[15] The Senior Executive Council, a high-level management committee,
was established in 2001 to (1) help guide efforts across the department
to transform and improve the department's business practices, and (2)
to function as a board of directors for DOD. The Council, chaired by
the Secretary of Defense, also included the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, the service secretaries, and the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
[16] See GAO,, Defense Management: DOD Faces Challenges Implementing
Its Core Competency Approach and A-76 Competitions, GAO-03-818
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003).
[17] DOD's Fiscal Year 2006 budget request is for $34.7 million in
military construction for a new DDESS elementary school at Fort
Stewart, Ga., and a new elementary/junior high school addition at Fort
Bragg, N.C.
[18] While DDESS currently operates 59 domestic elementary and
secondary schools in the United States, only 58 were in operation at
the time of the study.
[19] A few additional schools were closed during prior base closure
rounds because of domestic base closure rounds conducted from 1988
through 1995. Any additional dependent school closures related to the
2005 base closure process will not be known until later this year when
base closure decisions will be finalized.
[20] 20 U.S.C. §7708. Absent specific transfer authority DOD property
disposal would be subject to the more lengthy procedures of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act, administered by the General
Services Administration.
[21] The expert panel's recommendations report, which included summary
data comparing and contrasting LEA and DDESS schools, did not always
agree with the comparative data included in various summary reports
provided by the Donahue Institute staff.
[22] See footnote 7 on page 5.
[23] An area of savings from transferring educational responsibility to
LEAs would be in teacher salaries. The transfer study noted significant
differences in teacher salaries between DDESS and LEA schools.
[24] U.S. Department of Education officials told us that making such
upgrades had been necessary to encourage LEAs to accept transfer of
school facilities owned by the Department of Education even though the
LEAs were already educating dependents in these schools.
[25] LEAs receive federal payments to compensate for the loss in tax
revenues due to the presence of tax-exempt federal property and
increased school enrollments due to federal activities.
[26] Congressional Research Service, U.S. Army's Modular Redesign:
Issues for Congress, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 6, 2005).
[27] Prior to 1981, DDESS schools were referred to as Section 6
schools, which was a reference to their funding source at that time
under Section 6 of Public Law 81-874.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: